Sounds like you've already been programed, programed to believe without evidence and only accept things that conform to your bias.

Well judging from what your proposal for me was it would appear you had no choice in the matter when you made your decision. You have not been given the information I have been presenting you and that tells me where you are coming from. Your bias is programmed into you.

As long as you continue to claim things without providing evidence, you are only continuing to prove my point that you are programed to beleive without evidence and only accept things that conform to your bias.

Would you like more evidence of your bias?

Quote

Quote from: Jesuis on March 03, 2014, 10:18:28 PM

Quote

Quote from: SevenPatch on March 03, 2014, 09:18:57 PM

Are you willing to accept that lack of evidence, several paradoxes, contradictions and problems likely means "God" does not exist and that "Theists" do not know "God" -- or is your closed mindedness your reasoning for your dogma?

I cannot accept that --

Your bias and programming will not allow you to accept that lack of evidence, several paradoxes, contradictions and problems likely means "God" does not exist and that "Theists" do not know "God" which means you have a closed mind and that is your reasoning for your dogma.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

I understand what you are saying -- many people can claim to know -- but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point. There is always a true living theist teaching others and some of those never complete their training. They can make many claims to know things but they don't have know everything. They are not true theists.

Okay. Imagine this scenario. There is no god. There never has been a god. Consciousness is not a god. Nothing is a god. But theists say they know god.

As you define it, would those theists, saying that they know a god that doesn't exist in any way, shape or form, still know god?

If so, why?

Because that is where we differ with you. Completely.

If you cannot coherently state your case, whatever it is, about this scenario, you are doing nothing but wasting time.

I doubt that you can adequately explain your position, but feel free to surprise the living sh*t out of us.

That is how you end up like you. Imagining nonsense making it suit your nonsense and then claiming everything else is that nonsense you imagined. Consciousness is observing itself and others. It is aware of the things in its environment and of itself. It is even aware of the thought before the thought.

No, I end up like me for, among other reasons, this is true:

There is no god. There never has been a god. Consciousness is not a god. Nothing is a god.

Which beats the crap out of lying to myself, letting others lie to me, and being a general pain in the ass because I think I know everything.

Do you like how it feels to lie to yourself, how it feels to let others lie to you, and how it feels to be a general pain in the ass?

If so, we're both happy. I just wish you were happier with your own kind instead of us.

I do not think you understand what falsifiable means in terms of science. Otherwise you would not claim that "atheists prove it does not exist daily". Once a hypothesis is falsified, it's no longer relevant, because it's been shown to be false. You have to modify the hypothesis to account for it, and so far you haven't done that. Indeed, your statement "theists know and atheists don't" is a textbook example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, because if someone doesn't 'know', they're automatically an atheist in your eyes. Therefore, it is impossible to falsify because nobody can show that the hypothesis itself is false and thus force a revision of it.

Quote from: Jesuis

Indeed they do use a scientific method to know the self. It is meditation on the inner light and sound. "Quan yin method" Surat shabd yoga, The ancient science of soul travel as Eckankar put it.

Again, I do not think you understand just what the scientific method is. It is not a method that you can subsequently claim is scientific; it is a specific methodology used to test hypotheses to determine if they work or not. The short version of the scientific method is to make an observation, formulate a hypothesis, perform experiments to test the hypothesis, then determine if your hypothesis is falsified or not. If it is, then you formulate a new hypothesis; if it is not, then you perform new experiments to further test the hypothesis. That's what it takes to call something scientific. If these meditation methods you talk about have not been checked through the scientific method, they are not scientific.

Quote from: Jesuis

Indeed you cannot go within without purifying the mind from its negative outward pursuits. Lust greed ego is not going to help you if you want to go within. It has strict guideline that one needs to adhere too.

No, that isn't what the controls I was talking about are for. Basically, the purpose of controls is to limit the variations possible in the experiment as tightly as possible so that you can tell what the variable you're actually examining in the experiment actually does (assuming it does anything). And you need to keep specific records of your results so that other people can reproduce them. I highly doubt that anyone has done any kind of experiments to check lust, greed, and ego to see what effects they might actually have, for example. Instead, it's always taking someone's word for it that they're bad and need to be excluded.

Quote from: Jesuis

The process of going within is the same for all. All will experience the same things. Once they have crossed over the possibilities are endless. Those experiences are dependent on where you go. But the path to go in is the same because it is the pah out of the human body. That doorway one's consciousness has to pass is all the same.

Therefore, the process of "going within" is not the same for all, because what you get once you're 'within' is never the same. It's the exact opposite of a reproducible experiment; you can "go within" as many times as you want and never have the same experience once you're 'within', therefore nobody who runs an 'experiment' on it will get the same result. Science depends on reproducible experiments; if I do an experiment and get a certain result, then someone else who does the same experiment the same way I did should get the exact same result. If they don't, then one or the other of us made a mistake somewhere (or else there's a variable that was different between us).

Worse yet, at least from your perspective, there's no way to verify that the experiences that a person undergoes while "going within" are actually real. As far as anyone else can tell, it might as well be a dream. You can't have two different people "go within" and encounter each other because it's a personal, subjective experience. Which, incidentally, is why it's not reproducible.

Quote from: Jesuis

We know - but the truth was kept hidden until the homeopathy research caused them to reveal their hand. What came out of that is the hypocrisy of doctors and medical professionals bent on lying about their products to their patients.

This is nothing but your bias and antipathy towards the medical profession talking, Jesuis. The only one you are fooling into thinking otherwise is yourself. You didn't even understand the actual reason I brought up the placebo effect - which was not to give you a soapbox to preach from. I brought it up to point out that if someone believes something, their mind can make their body react as if it's true, even though it isn't. That fits what you're trying to preach to a T, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not - because what you're trying to preach requires people to believe that it's true before it can work. Whether they actively disbelieve or simply don't have a belief one way or the other, they won't get the results that you promise; only the ones who actively believe you can possibly get the results you promise.

Quote from: Jesuis

How do you know they are not??? What do you really know!!!????

If they were following the rules of scientific methodology, they would have had things they could have published and that other people could have verified. That's how actual science works; it doesn't depend on being taught things that only work if you believe they do strongly enough. It depends on being able to produce results that other people can reproduce if they follow the same method. If I take Diet Coke and Mentos and mix them, I'll get a fizzy eruption out of the bottle as the Mentos react to the carbonation of the soda; anyone else who does the same thing the same way will get the same result[1]. But with what you're preaching, someone who does the same thing as you will get different results; they may not even get any results if they don't believe it can work.

The point is that if you have to know it works, or even if you have to believe it works, in order for it to work, then what you're doing isn't science and cannot be.

Quote from: Jesuis

Its all well and good to say that but you really do not know... that is when it becomes selective bias or group think.

You mean like the selective bias you've been engaging in the entire time you've been on this site?

Quote from: Jesuis

No one on here has been investigating their science they sit and say it is not science ..that is not investigation it is laziness.

It's because they aren't doing science to begin with. It doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise, it doesn't matter that you think it's laziness on the parts of the people you're talking to; if they aren't doing actual reproducible scientific experiments that other people can do and get the same result whether they believe in it or not, then there's nothing for anyone to investigate to begin with. What you're preaching depends on people believing it can work; if they don't, then it won't. Real, actual science doesn't depend on whether people believe in it or not.

Quote from: Jesuis

Its similar to everyone saying there is enough evidence that proves their is loads weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When you go in and examine the evidence you find nothing. That is your state here.

Yes, exactly. You make claims, and when people investigate them, they find nothing except an unsupported belief system and wild claims by proponents that don't actually hold up.

Quote from: Jesuis

You have not idea of what the present day theists teach, you have no one investigating it, you simply claim. You have no idea what consciousness is but claim that it is not what theists say it is. You are just messing about hiding behind the banner of science when in reality you have nothing.

You're the one making claims that you can't support with actual research. Several people in this thread alone have asked you to support your claims, and you've linked to books written by people who make claims that depend on people believing them in order for them to seemingly work.

Given that you can't support any of your claims except by telling people that if they believe strongly enough, those claims will actually work (ala Peter Pan and his fairy dust, where if you have some of it and think happy enough thoughts, you can fly through the air), I see no reason to give your beliefs any credence. Compare that to actual scientific discoveries that have been tested and verified countless times, and have never required people to believe in them in order for them to work.

Different thread and closed. However I guess we could substitute Consciousness for God in it.

Quote

Why do you think you will never know?

Cause I have no clue what is this evidence. -- Consciousness is in all life while it is alive. To ask me for evidence for it would be saying you cannot see hear feel touch or taste to experience what I experience. I need something more specific when you say where is the evidence cause I ain't understanding your point.

Quote

Is your bias making you say that? Is it easier for you if you convince yourself that my standards are too high?

Well maybe it is my bias - but then again it could be yours. - Maybe your standards are too high . I am convinced it is. So tell me what is consciousness? Tell me why theists are wrong? Tell me what you really know rather than asking me to provide more than what theists say. If you know anything tell me.

Quote

Why is asking for any evidence at all too much for you?

Its not -- it is me knowing what you are looking for as evidence. I am chasing my tail trying to figure that out. Every time I read it it is like "what"?

Quote

Why is it you require little to no evidence to believe one thing, yet you expect evidence for the things you don't already believe?

Cause I have no clue what is this evidence. -- Consciousness is in all life while it is alive. To ask me for evidence for it would be saying you cannot see hear feel touch or taste to experience what I experience. I need something more specific when you say where is the evidence cause I ain't understanding your point.

I'm not asking for evidence of consciousness. I'm asking for evidence that there is a "God" and then additional evidence that there is a connection between consciousness and "God".

You can't simply say, there is consciousness "therefore God exists". Doing so allows you to claim anything imaginary exists. Consciousness is not evidence for the existence of "God", it is only evidence for the existence of consciousness.

Is your bias making you say that? Is it easier for you if you convince yourself that my standards are too high?

Well maybe it is my bias - but then again it could be yours. - Maybe your standards are too high . I am convinced it is. So tell me what is consciousness? Tell me why theists are wrong? Tell me what you really know rather than asking me to provide more than what theists say. If you know anything tell me.

I know that consciousness exists. That is it. There is evidence that consciousness exists.

Again however, you are the one with claims about knowing "God". I am asking for evidence that there is a "God" and that there is a connection between "God" and consciousness.

Do you think that consciousness is "God"? If yes, then is there any difference between consciousness and "God"? If no, then why use the word "God" instead of just using the word consciousness? Why attach a different unrelated word to another word?

Its not -- it is me knowing what you are looking for as evidence. I am chasing my tail trying to figure that out. Every time I read it it is like "what"?

Okay, here is an example. When you are typing in the message box of a "Post reply" box and press the g key, what happens? The letter g appears correct? Inspect the keyboard, perhaps there is a letter G symbol printed on the key, indicating that it is the G key. If you are typing, and press the G key, a letter g appears on your screen in the message box of the "Post reply" box. This is evidence that when you press the G key, the letter g appears and I have formed a hypothesis that pressing the G key will cause the letter g to appear when typing a message. I can then perform a test of this hypothesis by pressing the G key, if the letter j appears when I press the G key then the hypothesis will be falsified (perhaps I performed the test wrong and need to test again or review the testing process, keyboard or keys again). If however the letter g appears when I press the G key, then I have verified the hypothesis (it might be useful to review everything again just to be sure). Now that I have verified the hypothesis, I can write up my findings, evidence, testing procedure, testing results and conclusions and ask that someone else performs the same test by which they can verify or falsify the hypothesis. If someone else falsifies the hypothesis because the letter o appears when they press the G key, then we can review what they did. If they also verify the hypothesis, then we are making progress. Once the majority of experts of pressing the G key have verified the hypothesis, we can then consider the hypothesis to be a theory, as pressing the G key results in the letter g appearing.

Here is a picture of the G key:

Any hypothesis regarding what happens when we press the G key can be verified or falsified.

The same is true of consciousness. For instance, here is an article from the University of Virginia about how we might test for consciousness of a potentially sentient computer program.

The same is not true however regarding the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and tooth fairy. Can you provide more evidence for the existence of "God" than what can be provided for the existence of Santa Claus? Can you provide more evidence for the connection between "God" and consciousness than what can be provided for the connection between Santa Claus and the north pole?

I do not think you understand what falsifiable means in terms of science. Otherwise you would not claim that "atheists prove it does not exist daily". Once a hypothesis is falsified, it's no longer relevant, because it's been shown to be false. You have to modify the hypothesis to account for it, and so far you haven't done that. Indeed, your statement "theists know and atheists don't" is a textbook example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, because if someone doesn't 'know', they're automatically an atheist in your eyes. Therefore, it is impossible to falsify because nobody can show that the hypothesis itself is false and thus force a revision of it.

OK I now have a better understanding of what you mean by falsifiable relative to science. Anyway that title is not the hypothesis or what the science is .. It is more to do with semantics. I am trying to make it clearer for other atheists to see what I see. I am trying to shine a light in the dark tunnel so to speak. That not all atheist are dogmatic or rigid.

Quote

Again, I do not think you understand just what the scientific method is. It is not a method that you can subsequently claim is scientific; it is a specific methodology used to test hypotheses to determine if they work or not. The short version of the scientific method is to make an observation, formulate a hypothesis, perform experiments to test the hypothesis, then determine if your hypothesis is falsified or not. If it is, then you formulate a new hypothesis; if it is not, then you perform new experiments to further test the hypothesis. That's what it takes to call something scientific. If these meditation methods you talk about have not been checked through the scientific method, they are not scientific.

Ok so who is going to check it through? Not that it hasn't been done already but you seem to be indicating that it hasn't. So unless I m misunderstanding you maybe I should ask what do you mean by "checked through"?

Quote

No, that isn't what the controls I was talking about are for. Basically, the purpose of controls is to limit the variations possible in the experiment as tightly as possible so that you can tell what the variable you're actually examining in the experiment actually does (assuming it does anything). And you need to keep specific records of your results so that other people can reproduce them. I highly doubt that anyone has done any kind of experiments to check lust, greed, and ego to see what effects they might actually have, for example. Instead, it's always taking someone's word for it that they're bad and need to be excluded.

They do prescribe a daily introspective dairy that must be maintained by followers or disciples for the purpose of progression. To become more and more aware of course.

Quote

Therefore, the process of "going within" is not the same for all, because what you get once you're 'within' is never the same. It's the exact opposite of a reproducible experiment; you can "go within" as many times as you want and never have the same experience once you're 'within', therefore nobody who runs an 'experiment' on it will get the same result. Science depends on reproducible experiments; if I do an experiment and get a certain result, then someone else who does the same experiment the same way I did should get the exact same result. If they don't, then one or the other of us made a mistake somewhere (or else there's a variable that was different between us).

I have obviously / maybe deliberately exploded your mind. -- So No! if you were coming to Earth via a wormhole the experience of coming to earth via the wormhole is always the same but what you experience on Earth when you come is different every time depending on where you are or want to go. The sciency bit is the way to get to the wormhole and what happens in the wormhole.

Quote

Worse yet, at least from your perspective, there's no way to verify that the experiences that a person undergoes while "going within" are actually real. As far as anyone else can tell, it might as well be a dream. You can't have two different people "go within" and encounter each other because it's a personal, subjective experience. Which, incidentally, is why it's not reproducible.

Not true you can meet up for classes like you do here on earth its in their books. I am not sure all are free online but I will not be providing any evidence of this. Freewill to the mind is always going to be a stumbling block when new pathways open up.

Quote

If they were following the rules of scientific methodology, they would have had things they could have published and that other people could have verified. That's how actual science works;

I am sure they have that. Paul Twitchell broke the rules and published outside their inner circle. They have a plan and a science but I suppose main stream scientists do not have their paperwork. I doubt they are bothered either.

Quote

The point is that if you have to know it works, or even if you have to believe it works, in order for it to work, then what you're doing isn't science and cannot be.

Yea that is what my grand said when he gave his science report to his teacher. His teacher was not impressed if only he knew what you knew they would all have had "A"s. Maybe they are just programming them.

Quote

You mean like the selective bias you've been engaging in the entire time you've been on this site?

You were doing so well. Why stop now?

Quote

It's because they aren't doing science to begin with. It doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise, it doesn't matter that you think it's laziness on the parts of the people you're talking to; if they aren't doing actual reproducible scientific experiments that other people can do and get the same result whether they believe in it or not, then there's nothing for anyone to investigate to begin with. What you're preaching depends on people believing it can work; if they don't, then it won't. Real, actual science doesn't depend on whether people believe in it or not.

That's right -- theists say pure means pure -- it does not mean if you believe you will be saved. You must know who you are and if not get a teacher.

Quote

Yes, exactly. You make claims, and when people investigate them, they find nothing except an unsupported belief system and wild claims by proponents that don't actually hold up.

We are on a sync here "Key words" ... you investigate them. Where is the investigation by any claimants of atheism when clearly there are living teachers on how to know God - in your version of the use of the word no one can investigate. They can only sit on their laurels and say where is the evidence - hoping other will bring it for them. Knowing has a process.

Quote

You're the one making claims that you can't support with actual research. Several people in this thread alone have asked you to support your claims, and you've linked to books written by people who make claims that depend on people believing them in order for them to seemingly work.

I have made no claims. Several people have been trying to get me to make a "claim to" something.

Quote

Given that you can't support any of your claims except by telling people that if they believe strongly enough, those claims will actually work (ala Peter Pan and his fairy dust, where if you have some of it and think happy enough thoughts, you can fly through the air), I see no reason to give your beliefs any credence. Compare that to actual scientific discoveries that have been tested and verified countless times, and have never required people to believe in them in order for them to work.

I do not make any claims other than 'Theists say' ".........." and that is documented. When people on here are debating the bible the say in Genesis 1 verse 29 it says. Or they say Jesus said "Blessed are the pure at heart for they shall see God" What I am saying is that there is a pattern and a process when it comes to identifying theists and what they say do and teach. I have also said theists are no use to us dead so there are living ones. What I am now observing is the root cause of atheism your style. And it has nothing to do with investigation or detective work where the theist are concerned but more of a "I don't care attitude". But Not from you of course.

Quick question. You are far more patient with J than the rest of us. Can you give us a synopsis of whatever the fuck it is that he's trying to say? Since he can't, I am desperately turning to other sources, and right now, you're my only hope.

I'm gonna give you another one of the karma thingies for your patience. I wish you had a better excuse to be eloquent and stuff. I'd love to see you talking about something worth discussing. It isn't your fault though. You can't help it if the wall you're talking to has issues.

Update: Golly gee, as I was typing this, you were typing that ^^^

Don't worry, you still get your karma point. I've no idea how you lasted so long.

And bye bye from me too, Jesuis. You have nothing to offer, and a lot of it. That is not a positive characteristic.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Quick question. You are far more patient with J than the rest of us. Can you give us a synopsis of whatever the fuck it is that he's trying to say? Since he can't, I am desperately turning to other sources, and right now, you're my only hope.

I'm gonna give you another one of the karma thingies for your patience. I wish you had a better excuse to be eloquent and stuff. I'd love to see you talking about something worth discussing. It isn't your fault though. You can't help it if the wall you're talking to has issues.

Update: Golly gee, as I was typing this, you were typing that ^^^

Don't worry, you still get your karma point. I've no idea how you lasted so long.

And bye bye from me too, Jesuis. You have nothing to offer, and a lot of it. That is not a positive characteristic.

Sometimes when he asks questions and shows at least some interest in learning, I have a glimmer of hope that he is serious about learning something. Unfortunately, more often than not he reverts back to asserting false dichotomies, like the one that made me lose my patience, or using logical fallacies.

As many others have pointed out, Jesuis is deeply invested in woo. He has built his entire belief structure on woo. Simple concepts like verifiability and falsifiability are foreign concepts to him, he has at least expressed that he understands but has yet to actually demonstrate that he does.

In this thread he has focused his attention on consciousness as to him it is very mysterious and he is trying to make sense of how consciousness exists. He refuses to say he doesn't actually know, which obviously is the honest thing to say when someone doesn't know (instead of making something up). He is confusing not knowing with something being false. He has the typical misconception that we are claiming that there is no "God" and seems to be willfully avoiding actually asking us to "prove there is no God". In another thread he thought it was possible to prove a negative, I don't recall if he responded to the problems with his logic.

It's almost as if he is advocating not being confrontational and just accepting what the majority says as true and for him, that is being flexible. As I said in my earlier reply, we just have to accept that "God" exists in order to not be dogmatic or rigid. He has no clue whatsoever that he himself is asserting a dogmatic rigid dichotomy.

What is most frustrating is that he doesn't refute the challenges and instead just ignores questions and retreats to illogical nonsense.

Of course, he could very well be just a troll, getting a laugh out of wasting peoples time on internet forums. His level of dedication to trolling is at least admirable despite how annoying it is.

EDIT:

PP,

You know what else was very telling, he couldn't even engage in a hypothetical scenario where "God" does not exist. I think we can both agree that we can imagine "God" existing, yet Jesuis cannot imagine "God" not existing.

I don't think Jesuis has really comprehended that his inability to imagine "God" not existing is a symptom of his dogma, close mindedness and bias.

He appears to be very frightened by the concept of "God" not existing. He has completely associated his existence with the existence of "God". For him to imagine "God" not existing would be like him imagining he himself doesn't exist.

2ND EDIT:

Also PP, thanks for the kind words although I don't think I've been the most patient, I think several others have been just as patient if not more so, including yourself.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 11:37:27 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

I had more or less the same take on his very strange POV as you, I guess. I was hoping I'd missed something and there was a little more, but your very appropriate and shouty post summed it up. His givens were to be treated as fact. Our givens were not to be treated as fact, or even given minor consideration. And he doesn't get it.

My guess is, that if he is as old as he claims, that he's not to comfortable about the part where he dies relatively soon (and I'm not wishing that on you at all, Jesuis, its just a fact) and he is hoping for a better outcome that just nothingness.

I'm a decade or more younger than what he says his age is (77 I believe) and as of now, I'm not panicky about my non-future. That could change. In the meantime, I do hope that I maintain a certain degree of impartiality about reality. And as I've said before, I sure would hate to die thinking I had all the answers. Because that isn't possible.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

OK I now have a better understanding of what you mean by falsifiable relative to science. Anyway that title is not the hypothesis or what the science is .. It is more to do with semantics. I am trying to make it clearer for other atheists to see what I see. I am trying to shine a light in the dark tunnel so to speak. That not all atheist are dogmatic or rigid.

I'm glad you have a better understanding, but science isn't about semantics. More specifically, it's intentionally precise - you don't want people to be confused as to what you mean. That's a big part of the reason why your attempts to define theist and atheist differently than common parlance keep failing in such a big way. You mean them one way, but the people you're talking to understand them another way. More to the point, you come across like a religious devotee, which makes your attempts to describe your beliefs as if they're scientific fall totally flat.

Very simply, if you want to promote what you believe as if it's scientific, you need to show scientific evidence to support it. Diaries and the like don't really count - they're useful, but you can't verify that what's written in the diary actually took place, nor can you show that the things that they write about have an independent existence.

Quote from: Jesuis

Ok so who is going to check it through? Not that it hasn't been done already but you seem to be indicating that it hasn't. So unless I m misunderstanding you maybe I should ask what do you mean by "checked through"?

In scientific methodology, stuff gets checked repeatedly. Basically, one person does an experiment, then other people do the same experiment to see if they get the same results, and so on and so forth. That's why science puts so much stock into reproducible experiments; if you can't reproduce what someone else does, how can you possibly tell whether their results are valid? You would just have to take their word for it (which is essentially what you're pushing), which collapses the whole framework that science is built on.

Quote from: Jesuis

They do prescribe a daily introspective dairy that must be maintained by followers or disciples for the purpose of progression. To become more and more aware of course.

Diaries are useful in a subjective sense, but you can't use them to prove that something really happened. It's like keeping a dream diary - you can become more and more aware of your dreams, but you can't ever show that those dreams were real.

Quote from: Jesuis

I have obviously / maybe deliberately exploded your mind. -- So No! if you were coming to Earth via a wormhole the experience of coming to earth via the wormhole is always the same but what you experience on Earth when you come is different every time depending on where you are or want to go. The sciency bit is the way to get to the wormhole and what happens in the wormhole.

No, you haven't exploded my mind. As for your example, leaving aside the fact that we have no wormholes (because they're way beyond us), if we did develop the technology to produce/use them, we would (obviously) be able to verify that wormholes existed through science. We could put observational devices inside the ship that they traveled through, to get data used to check whether the things that the people reported actually happened. And we could do various kinds of experiments Notably, these are things that we cannot do for these things you keep trying to promote. People can talk about what they seem to experience, but it is impossible to get independent observation or verification of those things. And without that, it's purely subjective, which means it might be interesting (just as the contents of a dream diary might be interesting), but it's certainly not scientific.

Another point you seem to have missed is that if someone is coming to Earth, it's possible to go to the same place more than once (a specific city would be recognizable as the same city whether it's summer or winter, although it would look different), and it's possible for multiple people to go to that same place. Yet as far as I know, nobody who's done this astral traveling (or whatever you call it) has managed to encounter a single other person or realistically gone to the same place more than once. That means their experiences are more like lucid dreaming than them actually going somewhere.

Quote from: Jesuis

Not true you can meet up for classes like you do here on earth its in their books. I am not sure all are free online but I will not be providing any evidence of this. Freewill to the mind is always going to be a stumbling block when new pathways open up.

This is the problem and it has always been the problem. You refuse to provide evidence to support your assertions, and you expect people to just read through books written by people who make grandiose claims but can't provide any real evidence either. So why should anyone care? It sounds like just another religious belief, complete with unverifiable stories which seem to support the whole idea.

Quote from: Jesuis

I am sure they have that. Paul Twitchell broke the rules and published outside their inner circle. They have a plan and a science but I suppose main stream scientists do not have their paperwork. I doubt they are bothered either.

That is not what I mean by publishing. Scientists publish papers describing their experiments and whatnot in journals which are read and reviewed by their peers and which are also open to the general public. The point being that other scientists in the same field can review what they did, repeat the experiments, publish comments and criticism, and so on. No doubt you'll claim that this is exactly like what advocates of Eck do, but it really isn't. First off, they're promoting a religious belief - you have to believe for it to work. Second, there's no realistic way to verify what someone else comes up with; they could easily claim they just went somewhere else in the "astral plane" or whatever it is, and nobody could disprove it. There would be no way to falsify anyone's specific results. And third, you have to rely on purely subjective perceptions, when those subjective perceptions are notoriously unreliable (as evidenced by the unreliability of eyewitness testimony).

Quote from: Jesuis

Yea that is what my grand said when he gave his science report to his teacher. His teacher was not impressed if only he knew what you knew they would all have had "A"s. Maybe they are just programming them.

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote from: Jesuis

You were doing so well. Why stop now?

I'm not your student, so don't treat me like it. The reason I made that comment is because you're throwing around similar terms yourself, and it isn't doing you any good. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to treat them seriously, and you really haven't been treating anyone here seriously since you first started posting. It gets frustrating. I had to take a break because I was getting too annoyed with you.

Quote from: Jesuis

That's right -- theists say pure means pure -- it does not mean if you believe you will be saved. You must know who you are and if not get a teacher.

No, I mean, unless someone believes that their methods work, they won't work for them. The gurus get the methods passed down to them from 'god' and then pass it on to believers. Meaning, if someone isn't a believer, it won't work for them.

Quote from: Jesuis

We are on a sync here "Key words" ... you investigate them. Where is the investigation by any claimants of atheism when clearly there are living teachers on how to know God - in your version of the use of the word no one can investigate. They can only sit on their laurels and say where is the evidence - hoping other will bring it for them. Knowing has a process.

What makes you think these teachers know 'god' in the first place? You've been asked this and asked this and asked this, and you've never really even acknowledged it. You define theist and atheist in your own way and aren't even willing to admit that other people define it differently, at least not as far as I've seen. The fact of the matter is that you believe in what these teachers say, and you believe in the god they preach about, whereas the people here do not do either. So you're seen as a liar by most of the people here because you keep claiming to be an atheist even though you clearly have a religious belief in Eck. It would be like someone claiming to be an atheist but promoting the religious doctrine of Christianity.

This may be difficult for you to understand, but when a person makes a claim, it's their responsibility to support it with evidence. There are simply too many people who make claims like yours without evidence to have it any other way. If a person isn't willing to provide evidence, or is unable to, then they have no right to expect anyone else to take them seriously. In short, if you want the people here to take you seriously, then you need to provide scientific evidence which supports what you're claiming. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Quote from: Jesuis

I have made no claims. Several people have been trying to get me to make a "claim to" something.

You've been making claims since the very first day you got here. "Theists know God, atheists don't" is a claim, for example, and that's hardly the only one. What people here have been trying to do is to get you to provide evidence to support what you're saying.

Quote from: Jesuis

I do not make any claims other than 'Theists say' ".........." and that is documented.

No, it is not documented. This is the thing that you just don't seem to get. Just because you're willing to accept that these people somehow know 'god' doesn't mean they actually do, and it doesn't relieve you (and them) of the responsibility to prove it.

Quote from: Jesuis

When people on here are debating the bible the say in Genesis 1 verse 29 it says.Or they say Jesus said "Blessed are the pure at heart for they shall see God"

Writings in a religious book do not serve as evidence that the original writer somehow knew 'god'. You need to understand this, Jesuis.

Quote from: Jesuis

What I am saying is that there is a pattern and a process when it comes to identifying theists and what they say do and teach. I have also said theists are no use to us dead so there are living ones. What I am now observing is the root cause of atheism your style. And it has nothing to do with investigation or detective work where the theist are concerned but more of a "I don't care attitude". But Not from you of course.

Humans are really good at figuring out patterns, even patterns that don't actually mean anything. People see images in clouds all the time; or they see a pattern and assume that some intelligence was responsible, then make up stories about that intelligence when they don't even know whether it's real or not.

Simply put, I'm just too much of a skeptic to take your word, or anyone's word, for it, unless I already know and trust them very well, and sometimes not even then. It has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with the fact that you keep making claims that you won't support and keep expecting other people to just jump right in and take your word for it by going and reading all the books that you think prove your case. There are way too many people in this world who will try to take advantage of the credulousness of others, or even just want to promote their own credulousness as fact. I've fallen for a few schemes like that myself, but not many - and it's only because I'm a skeptic and don't take their word for it.

That means you and your belief, too. If you aren't willing to give enough of a damn to provide the evidence you need to support what you believe, then you have no business expecting anyone else to give enough of a damn to care about what you believe and are trying to promote. The only reason I'm still responding is because I've learned to cultivate a huge amount of patience when dealing with other people.

Sometimes when he asks questions and shows at least some interest in learning, I have a glimmer of hope that he is serious about learning something. Unfortunately, more often than not he reverts back to asserting false dichotomies, like the one that made me lose my patience, or using logical fallacies.

Yes, it's almost as if he is asking for a free education.

However, you are still all interfacing with him on HIS terms.

Do what he does: Don't bother answering any questions that would be any effort.

I would suggest you state a scientific position to one of his sentences in a large post, and don't bother answering any of his woo. The thread will then die rapidly.

I guess it might be an interesting project to sort through all his posts and try to peice together a thorough review of his POV. It'll take me some time to do this.

I don't think I know any more about his POV than anyone else who has engaged him though. Everyone's responses to his woo has been spot on.

I really don't see any way to get Jesuis to see his errors. As you correctly point out PP, in the mind of Jesuis, we are too biased to simply accept that "God" exists because he does. He has projected his bias onto us and is assuming we have been effectively brainwashed to think "God" doesn't exist. He thinks he is going to deprogram us but doesn't realize we're not programed and there is nothing for him to deprogram. I, myself, used to be a Christian and Christianity and believing "God" existed was my programing. I've already deprogrammed myself. My mind is like a software program with no routines or sub routines relating to "God" and Jesuis keeps trying to remove the "God does not exist" sub routine even though that sub routine doesn't exist and never existed in the first place.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 12:21:51 AM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

I really don't see any way to get Jesuis to see his errors. As you correctly point out PP, in the mind of Jesuis, we are too biased to simply accept that "God" exists because he does.

I had this problem with 2 neighbours who were determined that positive energy machines (free energy) was real, and wanted to make one in their back yard.

I watched all their google videos, and read through all the instructions, and went to the Yahoo group, where they talked about it, and all the conspiracies that were covering it up. In each video, I could see how each inventor was transparently lying. But the enthusiasts couldn't see it, and in response, they countered that the inventor was deliberately making the machine look bad, so he wouldn't be killed.

I read some statements that "orgone energy" burned with negative heat, so it felt cool, and I watched another video, where someone was playing a party trick by putting ethanol into a balloon and exploding it, and pretending that it was orgone combustion. Someone put their hand next to the flame and exclaimed that it was warm.

I had a few problems. (1) Although the enthusiasts had a pop sci education, they were not technically educated enough to know that when someone says "This is an RF generator with an EMI coil, emitting negative energy with a coefficient of performance of 62", that what is really being said, is "This negative 1.4 cylinder car has an open air piston, and the wheels are on the roof, to save space."

(2) Furthermore, they refuse to see that the machine is attached to the ground, and could have a 120V power cable running up the leg.

The next really big problem is that they (3) approach the masters of the subject with reverence and won't ask any hard questions, because the master might get offended by their impertinence, and then not answer them. So, a whole Yahoo group was prepared to indulge the fantasy of the masters, who claimed they had built a car that ran on it, and not ask them any hard questions. The master would drift in and give some vague encouragement, and the dupes would feel blessed.

(4) all the people attempting this were trying to be elite, and to admit that it was all bunk, would mean losing status. If you ask your master a hard question, and you find out that you have been a fool for several years, it's a hard thing to swallow.

Essentially, you have the hard task of convincing someone that (1) their fantasy is a fantasy (2) they are dupes. They don't want to know either of these things.

Consciousness is in all life while it is alive. To ask me for evidence for it would be saying you cannot see hear feel touch or taste to experience what I experience. I need something more specific when you say where is the evidence cause I ain't understanding your point.

So tell me what is consciousness? Tell me why theists are wrong? Tell me what you really know rather than asking me to provide more than what theists say. If you know anything tell me.

I have already told you once before and I have already given you a link that you seem unable or unwilling to follow:

Consciousness is a by-product of evolution.

This is basically a reply to jesuis and his total amazement with “consciousness” which he thinks is a mysterious, ethereal substance that pervades the universe and (against all logic) can exist “on its own”.

The following is not complete but the broad outline. The Wiki Article on the [wiki]brain[/wiki] is a good starting point, and I have taken some of the following from it.

OK: explaining consciousness:

Plants and trees have a system of phototropism and geotropism: the upper part is drawn towards light and the root-system down into the earth. It does not matter if a seed falls the right way up or upside won, the sprout for the roots goes down and the sprout for the tree itself goes up.

Primitive creatures, such as bacteria, insects, etc., are attracted or repelled by heat, light, moisture, etc. They have evolved to the extent that this involuntary compulsion will allow them to find protection and food.

A dog, when given a certain stimulus, will wag its tail. A frog and a cat will both find themselves compelled to chase/catch something small that moves. The difference is that the frog will snap at anything that moves like a bug, whereas a cat will make a decision based upon what it sees.

In the case of a frog, it is not a conscious decision. In the case of the plants, it is a chemical function. In insects, it is sensitive cells that do the job independent of anything that the insect might be better off doing[1].

All that is required for the bodily functions to cause the creature a successful existence and life is contained within the cerebrum of reptiles and fish, in which the surface of the cerebrum is lined with the pallium. The pallium gives the creature the ability to learn and adapt.

In mammals, the pallium evolves into the far more complex neocortex, the hippocampus and amygdale.

The superior colliculus, which plays a major role in visual control of behaviour in most vertebrates[2] , shrinks to a small size in mammals, and many of its functions are taken over by visual areas of the cerebral cortex[3]. The cerebellum of mammals contains a large portion (the neocerebellum) dedicated to supporting the cerebral cortex, which has no counterpart in other vertebrates.

When we come to mankind, we see that the primate brain comes from a massive expansion of the cerebral cortex, especially the prefrontal cortex and the parts of the cortex involved in vision.

The prefrontal cortex carries out functions that include planning, working memory, motivation, attention, and executive control. It takes up a much larger proportion of the brain for primates than for other species, and an especially large fraction of the human brain.

So we now see that, particularly primates[4] have two distinct parts to the brain. One that, like the lesser creatures, controls the autonomic nervous system and over which we have little control, and the greater system that allows us to be fully aware of our surroundings – even unimportant parts – and react according to individual circumstances. It is the effects of this greater part that we call consciousness/the conscious.

When you look at history and the founders of religion, none of them knew any of this. They did not know it as dissection of human bodies was not allowed for religious reasons. They never thought to experiment. The observed common traits and, where they could not explain certain behaviours, they said, “God did it.”

We have moved on from this point. We have done the right thing. The god of the gaps has retreated. We know what consciousness is and why it came about.

Now that you have read that, here is a critique of the first two pages of your post. It may help is you see them in one post. You really are torturing the English language by inventing new definitions and using undefined phrases:

It is said that some 80% of our life and its awareness is built around the sight and its seeing part of conscious awareness.

Lets discuss the seeing aspect of consciousness. Does seeing stop when we close our eye lids? What evidence do you have that you are still seeing the darkness? Are you still conscious of seeing? What is it that is conscious?

Yes, seeing does stop, however, the figurative use of the verb to see is used to mean "understand." and can be used in such constructions as "I can see in my mind..." This does not mean that there are "eyes in your mind."

You would have to show me you have consciousness first. How do we do this?

I do not think that you understand the concept of abstract nouns. These are nouns we use for intangible things; things that have no existence "of themselves". They are often "feelings[1]". Concrete nouns are those that are tangible: cat, book, table, etc."

A lot of people think that abstract nouns are "mysterious" things that do have a tangible existence: they are not mysterious and do not have a tangible existence.

Some well know scientists say things without using critical thinking. They try to pull the lid over peoples eyes.

Can you give any examples or name these "scientists"? I don't think you can. I think you have simply made this up. A lot of people you know think you are mad. (That's an example of unattributed authority. You prove that the statement is wrong. - See the difficulty?)

Quote

All religions have a starting point and it is with a teacher.

I take as my example L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, who said, "If you want to make real money, invent a religion." Of course, we do not know if any of the teachers were mentally ill or simply fraudsters, but we suspect they were one or the other or both.

As I said The brain functions regarding various inputs. It is not conscious. We can activate the brain but consciousness needs to be there for the individual to make sense of the activity. The brain is not the individual consciousness.

Please see the article on [wiki]Sensory deprivation[/wiki]. You seem to be redefining "consciousness". If you start inventing meanings for words then you cannot communicate with normal people.

You are asking us to accept something that you do not understand. It would be madness for us to agree.

If there are any points you would like to discuss, you can ask or copy them to this thread. I have the same standards for everything before I believe something is true.

Diversity is good. I'll get to it. My trip is for a month from Friday. So I will be away for a while. I might take my lap top, but you know how it is on holidays.

Quote

I know that consciousness exists. That is it. There is evidence that consciousness exists.

Theists have been saying this since man has recorded God we just did not have a world wide web to be as interconnected as we are today.

Quote

Again however, you are the one with claims about knowing "God".

I am not claiming anything. It is in the books of theists or in the recorded works that others have written about theists. The claim is made by theists who know God. They have not imagined it or created out of thin air as atheists claim they have. They say so in their books today. Theists say one should know the difference between a person imagining God to be because his thoughts words and deeds would betray him "by their actions and words we will know them". A claimant is easily removed because he has a lower thinking and it has lust greed ego in it.

Quote

I am asking for evidence that there is a "God" and that there is a connection between "God" and consciousness.

Everyone is asking this question -- but theists answer you are created in that image and likeness. There is nothing they have that you don't have that is different than them. It is the direction you keep choosing that lowers your conscious awareness. That direction is one of ignoring the higher conscious awareness in you to follow sinning with the mind and its desires - Pinocchio story you need to listen to your conscious.

Quote

Do you think that consciousness is "God"?

That is the point made by theists. God is the all conscious and exists everywhere.

Quote

If yes, then is there any difference between consciousness and "God"?

Individual consciousness is different than God consciousness but is made of the same spiritual essence.

Quote

If no, then why use the word "God" instead of just using the word consciousness? Why attach a different unrelated word to another word?

Because there is diversity in individuality. Life in matter is individual but connected to or is in the whole.

Okay, here is an example. When you are typing in the message box of a "Post reply" box and press the g key, what happens? The letter g appears correct? Inspect the keyboard, perhaps there is a letter G symbol printed on the key, indicating that it is the G key. If you are typing, and press the G key, a letter g appears on your screen in the message box of the "Post reply" box. This is evidence that when you press the G key, the letter g appears and I have formed a hypothesis that pressing the G key will cause the letter g to appear when typing a message. I can then perform a test of this hypothesis by pressing the G key, if the letter j appears when I press the G key then the hypothesis will be falsified (perhaps I performed the test wrong and need to test again or review the testing process, keyboard or keys again). If however the letter g appears when I press the G key, then I have verified the hypothesis (it might be useful to review everything again just to be sure). Now that I have verified the hypothesis, I can write up my findings, evidence, testing procedure, testing results and conclusions and ask that someone else performs the same test by which they can verify or falsify the hypothesis. If someone else falsifies the hypothesis because the letter o appears when they press the G key, then we can review what they did. If they also verify the hypothesis, then we are making progress. Once the majority of experts of pressing the G key have verified the hypothesis, we can then consider the hypothesis to be a theory, as pressing the G key results in the letter g appearing.

Yes indeed. Every individual letter has its own personal character - The electricity does not differ in its supply. Every tree, every animal every form of life is unique. But at its core there is consciousness to exist and that is sustained for a predetermined time. Each life has its own purpose. That is the God spark that supplies that energy for consciousness to experience that what is available in that life form. Theists say the human being has the capability to know that connection life has with the all conscious.

Quote

Any hypothesis regarding what happens when we press the G key can be verified or falsified.

We are aware of our every thought word or deed and should be aware by verifying if we are taking a direction to a higher place or to a lower place observed by our eternal consciousness or relative to our humanity.

Quote

The same is true of consciousness. For instance, here is an article from the University of Virginia about how we might test for consciousness of a potentially sentient computer program.

So long as life is in form there is consciousness in it having some sort of experience.

Quote

The same is not true however regarding the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and tooth fairy.

These are the creations of the mind.They are not real or conscious. Only that which is all conscious creates consciousness.

Quote

Can you provide more evidence for the existence of "God" than what can be provided for the existence of Santa Claus?

Theists have much proof for the existence of God -- God is everywhere and all conscious. Life is a part of the All Conscious.

Quote

Can you provide more evidence for the connection between "God" and consciousness than what can be provided for the connection between Santa Claus and the north pole?

Santa is a creation of the mind. Everything the mind creates is imaginary and illusive. Theists say God is the reality of everything external and internal. The mind is standing between the reality or realms and the consciousness and it must be stilled for one to experience that truth.

Quote

You have indicated that "Theists know God and that atheists don't", which is merely your belief so you believe that "Theists know God". You believe that "God" exists.Why do you not require evidence that "Theists" know "God" or that "God" exists?

I am bringing the idea to the gnostic atheists so that we can do the critical thinking through an unbiased and scientific query. The title of that thread was to open the debate. From that tittle I was able to realize that we needed to identify this element of the theists "woo" words Consciousness. Since this is their trump card and no atheists have understood it maybe they have been making false claims -- what they are saying that there is no God could be a false claim ie that somehow it is scientific wisdom that there is no god. Atheists from what I am gathering is that they are as closed minded and as bigoted as the Romans were when they were spreading Christianity across Europe - while ignoring everyone else or any truths being told to them. They don't want to know the truth but to dictate what the truth is - thus stifling humanity, stifling the compassion of being able to love thy enemy as they self, it is the love aspect that is God and conscious, they lack the awareness of respect for the believers as they pursue some selfish agenda on dehumanizing mankind.

Without some moral authority some higher ethical standard they have no real good human agenda. If you listen to any gnostic atheists you never hear of the higher humane authority that they are seeking. All you hear is their selfishness which comes from mind and desire and how unconnected they are from the path of the theists.